Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

[Bravus]

(the distinction between a homosexual orientation and homosexual actions is something that will likely arise naturally in the discussion)

Let us take a close look at each of the texts in the Old and New Testaments that are read as condemning homosexuality, to find out whether that is a valid reading of those texts.

The discussion is not about the inspiration of the Bible, it is about reading the Bible honestly and carefully. Let's try not to project our own views, in any direction, onto the texts (eisegesis) but to carefully and inductively go to the texts themselves and discover what they mean (exegesis).

Let's start with a list of texts, to which others can add if they know of any that I have missed. 

I've used the KJV because it's the version I grew up with and know, and because more people trust it. I'm happy to see other translations used if it clarifies the meaning, but hope all can agree that the original language is more important to understanding than any translation.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1: 26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-11 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

That's 5 texts - are there more that should be included? Perhaps then we can take the two in Leviticus together first for study, then each of the others individually?

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

That's 5 texts - are there more that should be included? Perhaps then we can take the two in Leviticus together first for study, then each of the others individually?

Yes, there are some more.  

Deuteronomy

 23:17    There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.  
 23:18    Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.  

Revelation

22:14    Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.  
 22:15    For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.  

The Bible uses discreet language to refer to the homosexuals in the above passages, but clearly parallels the term "dog" with a "sodomite."

 

[Bravus]

Thanks - I had the number 7 in my mind, so these 2 added to the 5 I already had should make up the roll call, unless anyone has any others.

[Bravus]

The story of the angels, Lot and Sodom is about rape, not loving consensual relationships.

No-one here is saying rape is not sinful.

[Bravus]

The Hebrews text is another circular reasoning one: if you assume homosexual relations defile the marriage bed it applies, but you have to assume that before it applies.

For the moment, how about we make a start with the 7 texts that mention the issue more directly. We can maybe return to the Matthew one later in the context of marriage, but it's kind of off topic for this thread.

[GayatfootofCross]

Lets not confuse mass violent rape in Sodom with a Monogamous Relationship with a Lesbian  or Gay Men.

..And interesting to note that no such command given in Leviticus or anywhere else in the OT for women not to be together sexually.

The  poles of Asherah (phallus symbol) and the etc. were all about male fertility in the temple. Symbolizing powr and fertility. So naturally it was forbidden among the males ..but nothing said about women with womencause that was not the focus on the Temple rites.

Every seed in Israel was considered sacred and not to be wasted (  Onan ..Gen. 38:9  ). Building up the Tribe. BTW ..in ancient times God working within the Culture of believing that Women were the fertile or infertile ground for the male seed. HE leads step by step ..He could have declared to the men at some point "HEY it's not always the ladies fault she didn't become pregnant" ..but i digress.

 

But now God saw the need to clarify the misconception of the Sins of Sodom. JUST HAD TO! (still has too..but not working very well with some)

 “Your sister Sodom and her daughters were proud. They had too much to eat and too much time on their hands, and they did not help poor, helpless people. ⁵⁰ Sodom and her daughters became too proud and began to do terrible things in front of me. So I punished them! Eze 16:49,50

Let the Bible speak for itself.

Jesus came along and emphasized these very things. The second Great Commandment is all love and service and seeing JESUS in every soul, JESUS is the most beautiful humble BEING in the whole Universe.

When we catch a glimpse of that we see just how sinful it is to not help the poor and to dominate and violently humiliate men.

A whole city like that. How dreadful!

Just like Noah's day .. Filled with violence and every thought was evil. Gen 6:5,11

Same exact set up.

Imagine God looking down on an evil group of people in a City or the World and seeing the children of the city/world suffer beyond hope and putting them in suspended animation to wake up in Heaven (i know i know ..another thread..but couldn't resist pointing out our Wonderful GOD)

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

5 hours ago, David Geelan said:

The story of the angels, Lot and Sodom is about rape, not loving consensual relationships.

No-one here is saying rape is not sinful.

Loving consensual relationships have no direct relationship to the question of lawfulness in marriage.  Naturally, one hopes to have a loving relationship.  However, the fact of having one does not make it a legal relationship.  Biblical examples of this would include Herod and Herodias, Solomon and his harem, Amnon and Tamar (at least for a one-night stand), Samson and Delilah, etc.  Would it have made everything ok if Joseph had loved Potiphar's wife and consented to be with her?  

There is no Biblical definition of legal marriage in which "loving consensual" makes anything ok.  In fact, there were some marriages in the Bible that God required even, perhaps, in the absence of love.  Consider the following:

Deuteronomy

 22:28    If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;  
 22:29    Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.  

In the above case, as in the case of Amnon, the man may not have loved her afterward.  She would be unlikely to gravitate toward her rapist.  But the law forbad the man from putting her away--he had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life.  Basically, marriage was here a form of punishment, a consequence for a rash act, to help people respect the institution of marriage.

[JoeMo]

Just my opinion, but I don't think the sin of the antediluvians or Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality.  It was more like bestiality where women were the beasts.  I believe that the story about the Nephillim  in Gen 6 is literal - fallen angels were having sex with human women, producing giant superhuman hybrid beings  who would eventually wipe out God's created humanity, thus destroying the lineage from which the Savior would come.  Someone on the ark obviously carried the Nephillim "gene", because there were still giants in the land.

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't "need" these angels for homosexual activity.  If gay sex is what they wanted, there were allegedly plenty of partners.  These people wanted sex with the angels!  God had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the same reason He sent the flood - to save His human creation from being wiped out by a demonic hybrid race.  2 Peter 1:4-6 talks about this:

"⁴ For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,^[a] putting them in chains of darkness^[b] to be held for judgment; ⁵ if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; ⁶ if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;"

(to be continued - running out of time)

[JoeMo]

4 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

It's off topic but 2 Peter 1 is a description when the fallen angels were thrown down to earth.

... and what they did when they were thrown down to earth.  They had sex with women and corrupted the human genome that was designed by God.  For that the angels had to be imprisoned; and the tainted demonic race destroyed.

[GayatfootofCross]

 

Lets not confuse mass violent rape in Sodom with a Monogamous Relationship with a Lesbian  or Gay Men.

..And interesting to note that no such command given in Leviticus or anywhere else in the OT for women not to be together sexually.

The  poles of Asherah (phallus symbol) and the etc. were all about male fertility in the temple. Symbolizing power and fertility. So naturally it was forbidden among the males ..but nothing said about women with womencause that was not the focus on the Temple rites.

......................................................................................................................................................

Silly me

I meant to put Monogamous Relationships with either Lesbian Women or Gay Men

................

We Seventh Day Adventist have a long tradition of not letting the culture define Scriptures. Sunday Keeping and Hell ..just to name Two we looked more deeply into the matter.

I believe our culture  (since antiquity)of bigotry prevents from looking into this  thread topic prevents far too many to look deeply into this.

I have so much more to show and highlight in reference to original intent of scriptures, The Men dominated culture, and cultural backdrop on all the verses seeming to briing it up in both OT and NT.

But many are so offended at the thought that God would even permit such a thing as a relational dynamic among God's other children..they can't even, for one moment, look at their own hearts regarding people who for centuries have been vilified and terrorized. 

People for eons  have backed up the worst things in our society (slavery misogeny child abuse etc) using scriptures wrongly. They see God this way.

Now many people are finding a deeper understanding-discarding the ignorance of times past.Using scriptures to uphold people Worth and Relationships.

They are seeing GOD this way now.

AS Christ's appearing comes closer and closer more of a Truer Interpretation is also being revealed.

People stood against Sabbath keeping. A great long History of keeping the 1st day has lensed their understanding of Scriptures. Maybe the same could be said regarding this?

...............................................................................................................

BTW in all this debate the OP brings up I want to say that the IDEAL Relationship was set up in Eden

One Man One Wife for Life.

Man to love only her and have sex only with her (no sex with anyone else before or during or after marriage).

And to love her Like CHRIST Loves the Church! Sacrificially and patiently and Serving her ALL YOUR DAYS.

In WORD THOUGHT and ACTION.

Ahhhhh..The IDEAL perfect Union!

bask in that thought.

relish and live out the IDEAL!

.

I put up a thread of a facet of LOVE that is GOD.. that many Christians will not understand though they live out their life betting on it without realizing it.

 

GOD works thru us where ever we are at. In all the non ideal relationships. HE is that kind of LOVE!

[Bravus]

There are two separate issues - rape and homosexuality. Attempts to conflate them look like misdirection.

Consent is the distinction between rape and not-rape. Examples of the Bible requiring a rapist to marry his victim are examples of that 'not God's ideal, because of the hardness of your hearts' issues. When a woman's value was seen, in a patriarchal society, as being her reproductive potential, specifically for offspring that can be guaranteed to be the husband's, a non-virgin was 'damaged goods'. The rapist became responsible for her upkeep in a society with no social safety net. Do you think this is God's ideal for humanity? God's ideal is a loving relationship and no rape, but in a fallen world, not leaving a rape victim to have to become a prostitute to survive was the same kind of thing as reducing vengeance to 'an eye for an eye'.

So, can we please leave Sodom aside? That story is not about homosexuality. (The fact that a misunderstanding has brought the word 'sodomite' into the English language is not in itself evidence.)

There are 7 texts that are much more direct, and if this is to be a careful, thoughtful examination of the Biblical evidence, they are the place to start.

 

[Bravus]

Let's make a start with these two:

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

There are at least two issues to consider - and these will apply to the other texts as well: what the words mean in the original languages and the context and purpose of the passages.

In this particular instance, the former is less of an issue. 'Man, woman, lies with' all seem fairly clear in context. 'Abomination' might be worth looking at. This is a useful place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_%28Bible%29

The word used in these two texts in Leviticus is 'Tōʻēḇā'. It seems clear that these two texts are saying that male-male intercourse is forbidden.

That leaves two considerations: (a) what is the context and (b) is it still binding on believers under the New Covenant?

For the former question, the simplest approach is to read through all of Leviticus 18, 19 and 20. Here is a link, and it allows you to select a translation of your choice: (arrgh, BibleGateway won't cooperate, you'll have to link it yourselves.

What is the purpose of these rules? Why are they included? Are they all still binding, or only some of them? do you personally abide by all of them?

(please note: this is an unbelievably busy week and weekend at work for me, so the pace is likely not to be particularly fast in this discussion. Very happy if it goes forward with limited participation from me.)

(second note: if it seems as though I am trying to control the direction of the discussion, it is purely in the interests of having a clear and focused discussion. It would be very easy to try to consider everything at once... but that path is much more likely to lead to people reinforcing their existing views than to seriously considering what the Bible says)

[GayatfootofCross]

55 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Gay, I believe you to keep tripping over the idea of sanctification and turning away from past sins and not continuing in them.

Hi Kevin(wrx).

May Joy the Lord be your Strength!

The Sanctification process going on is replacing our heart from stone to flesh of  looking upon GOD OTHERS and SELF.

Keeping your eyes on Jesus and His Great Love for you.

.No one is living up to the idea.

And that is my point.

The GOD of Concession  is not about turning away from become wholly and pure but about just how unholy we all are.

We are worse than we think and GOD is better than we think also.

 

We probably have very different pictures of GOD.

GOD loves and serves and very tender towards QUEERS.

HE understands us.

I find such great comfort in HIM.

I love HIM so much!

 

# HE first Loved me

[GayatfootofCross]

1 minute ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Gay, is what you say backed up by Scripture?

I said a mouthful.

Which exactly did I say that was unscriptural?

Blessings!

[Green Cochoa]

11 hours ago, David Geelan said:

So, can we please leave Sodom aside? That story is not about homosexuality. (The fact that a misunderstanding has brought the word 'sodomite' into the English language is not in itself evidence.)

Did you read the story about Sodom?  Do you realize those perverse men who came to Lot's house wanting the male guests he had invited inside refused to accept Lot's daughters in their place?  Their intentions to have homosexual sex can hardly be more clear.  And this is not about homosexuality?  What does it take to make something about homosexuality?

[Bravus]

As I noted in the other thread: what makes you assume that angels are male?

Also, Lot's offer of his daughters suggests that it was (violent) sex that the crowd wanted, not specifically sex with men.

You seem to be projecting onto the story something that isn't there.

[GayatfootofCross]

7 hours ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

What you say is not scripture. The Bible is Scripture. God wrote the Bible not you.

I think I am gonna have to tip my hat to you if you actually think I was saying that.

I am Talking about God love for Sinners

I won't say anything more about this post to me

[delete]

:
 

 

........

 

At the end of of the day for Christians it is not about agreeing with theology so much as it is about Winning People to JESUS.

I guarantee This Keven(wrx) ...When you catch God's Love as it is be be shared..Your whole approach to sharing will draw others more than you can imagine

Here is a hint:.

May The Joy Of The Lord Be your Strength!

 

# u don't listen to me ..at least hear the others here

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

As I noted in the other thread: what makes you assume that angels are male?

Also, Lot's offer of his daughters suggests that it was (violent) sex that the crowd wanted, not specifically sex with men.

You seem to be projecting onto the story something that isn't there.

The angels did not come in angelic form.  The people were not wanting a supernatural experience with beings of another planet.  The Bible is clear: they looked like men.  In fact, very ordinary men.  Rereading the story might refresh our memories, but it's a little long, so I'll quote just a few pertinent texts.

"And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,  And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:  Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:  And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said." (Genesis 18:2-5)

This is the very story that gets referenced in the New Testament again, which says: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Hebrews 13:2)

Obviously, these did not look like angels if Abraham was unaware of it.  After Abraham had entertained them, they went on their way.

"And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD." (Genesis 18:22)

While the two angels were going on their mission toward Sodom, Abraham bargained with God in that now-famous plea for God to spare the city.  As we know, not even ten were found righteous there, and it was not spared.

No, the story of Sodom had nothing to do with angel sex.  It had everything to do with homosexual desire.  The men outside did not know they were asking for angels.  They perceived only ordinary men, just as both Abraham and Lot had perceived.  Lot did not know the true character of the men until they had blinded the crowd outside.  The story has been left on record for our admonition.

[GayatfootofCross]

Kevin(wrx)

I see I have offended you a  time ago and I ask that you forgive me.

 

 

[tips hat]

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin, you did not respond to the specific question that Gay asked you.

Gay has never claimed to have written the Bible.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

As I posted in the other topic...

 

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

While this may be a passing thought easily dismissed by most here apparently, I think it does deserve at least a closer look.  It does illustrate yet another set of assumptions that are made, including by translators of the original Hebrew.   We easily assume only a male gender specific meaning of the English word "men" by itself and assume the point of the sentence in context is to identify the gender of the three visitors that appear to Abraham and then the two later to Lot. However, both the English word "men" or the singular "man" and the Hebrew words so translated can be and are frequently used in a gender inclusive sense and to mean "mankind" "human" "people".

 A key underlying point of the narrative in Genesis 18, is that at their initial appearance to both Abraham and later to Lot was that they did not appear in angelic form, but rather they appeared in human form and were greeted and treated as such. The reaction to them would very likely have been quite different had they not appeared as humans. That was a point of the story, treatment of strangers and visitors in our midst, contrasting the immediate welcome and offer of kindness and hospitality by Abraham and Lot with the extreme opposite reaction of the already condemned mob of people of Sodom.  It is also worth noting that the attacking hostile Sodom mob is described as a mixed multitude of not just men, but as all the people of Sodom, young and old, male and female.  They were not just men.

I am not posting this to start an argument or to even support the side point David makes, but rather to demonstrate the role our assumptions and preconceived ideas play in reading and understanding, and indeed in general observations of life.  Life and language are most definitely fraught with ambiguity, uncertainty, nuance and require far more interpretation of what we think we perceive.  We cannot assume absolute accuracy and precision, nor that there is ever only one possible absolute truth of very much of any of it.

Since this now seems a point of debate here, I would add that the narrative does identify the attacking mob of Sodom as inclusive of all the people, meaning a mixed multitude, not just men, as in males only.   That Lot offers his daughters, clearly females, further erodes the idea that the point of the attack is for exclusively male homosexual sex. If it had been so, why not offer a couple of his male servants? The form of the inhospitable attack was rather beside the point.  Sodom's sin was not homosexuality, sodomy, or even rape, per se. Listen to the prophet Ezekiel's very clear and emphatic statement of what was such an abomination to God about Sodom in Ezekiel 16.  It was their callous and arrogant disregard for and unwillingness to extend even kindness, courtesy and hospitality to fellow humans, especially those in need and the strangers in their midst. Hositality to strangers, travelers, even ones enemies, was hugely important, and still is in the Middle East today.  That they were so far gone that they lacked such basic human decency was demonstrative evidence in the narrative that God decided to destroy them.

 

[Green Cochoa]

10 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

As I posted in the other topic...

 

Since this now seems a point of debate here, I would add that the narrative does identify the attacking mob of Sodom as inclusive of all the people, meaning a mixed multitude, not just men, as in males only.   That Lot offers his daughters, clearly females, further erodes the idea that the point of the attack is for exclusively male homosexual sex. If it had been so, why not offer a couple of his male servants? The form of the inhospitable attack was rather beside the point.  Sodom's sin was not homosexuality, sodomy, or even rape, per se. Listen to the prophet Ezekiel's very clear and emphatic statement of what was such an abomination to God about Sodom in Ezekiel 16.  It was their callous and arrogant disregard for and unwillingness to extend even kindness, courtesy and hospitality to fellow humans, especially those in need and the strangers in their midst. Hositality to strangers, travelers, even ones enemies, was hugely important, and still is in the Middle East today.  That they were so far gone that they lacked such basic human decency was demonstrative evidence in the narrative that God decided to destroy them.

 

You appear to overlook some obvious points in the story in order to reach the conclusions you do.

1) The story does not tell us it was a mixed multitude which included women.  In fact, aside from Lot's daughters, one cannot clearly establish from the story that any woman at all was involved in this incident.  It is true that the Hebrew word used in saying "the men of the city" is a word that can mean both males and mankind more generally.  However, it does not follow that women must have been in the crowd.  It could have been all men.

2) The fact that Lot offers his daughters does not erode the point of the attack being for homosexual sex, it establishes it.  If Lot went outside his front door to try to reason with the crowd thusly, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.  Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (Genesis 19:7-8), it implies strongly that Lot perceived their homosexuality as being a very vile and wicked act, so much so that it would be less wicked to let them have his own virgin daughters.  The offer of his daughters under these circumstances puts things into sharp focus.

3) The same word in Hebrew used for the men of the city is used to refer to the two angels.  This certainly puts no special gender difference between them, contrariwise implying sameness.  The daughters whom Lot offered were not, as you pointed out, male servants, and stand in stark contrast with the "brethren," clearly a reference to males in the Hebrew, further clarifying the issue at focus in this case.

It is certainly true that Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities near them, all sinned greatly in being lovers of pleasure instead of worshipers of God.  It is true that gluttony, drunkenness, adultery, and other sins accompanied that of homosexuality, and for all of these they were destroyed.  However, this story touches on the latter in terms sufficient for a child to recognize in reading the Bible for himself or herself. 

[Tom Wetmore]

First of all the Hebrew word translated as "men" is not gender exclusive and also means mankind or people.  But more importantly what do you think the phrase "all the people from every quarter" means, if not everyone, men and women?

And where exactly does the prophet Ezekiel say the sin of Sodom included homosexual sin, or any other sexual sin? 

[Green Cochoa]

Just now, Tom Wetmore said:

First of all the Hebrew word translated as "men" is not gender exclusive and also means mankind or people.  But more importantly what do you think the phrase "all the people from every quarter" means, if not everyone, men and women?

That entire quoted phrase in English comes from just two Hebrew words, and the word "all" is not attached to that verse in Hebrew.  The entire underlined phrase is one word in Hebrew, עַם "am," meaning nation or people.  A nation or people group can be represented by some of them, and does not require "all."  A simple question might serve to illustrate this--did the nursing infants come too?  The Hebrew word behind "from every quarter" is only translated one other time as "quarter," and 90+ times in other ways, including ends, borders, coasts, etc.  It basically means from every part.  So I would understand the story to be saying that people gathered from every district/region of the city of Sodom, and not just Lot's next-door neighbors were coming.  In other words, the word had spread quickly that Lot was entertaining guests--which I think is the primary reason for the story's inclusion of these two words in Hebrew.

[Tom Wetmore]

As for the text in Jude, It is far from clear that the Greek translated in the KJV as "strange flesh"  is referring to homosexual sexual activity. It appears to be broadly sexual perversion.  Are you going to directly address what the prophet Ezekiel said?  Are you suggesting that the word of Jude, many centuries later, should be taken over the words of the prophet Ezekiel, who in context was speaking the direct words of the Lord?